I need a bar exam to dissect a simple premise based argument? Your premise was that cross drilled rotors are available on motorcycles and are not a safety concern. This premise is true. However to form the argument that safety concerns and included within legal concerns should not prevent the inclusion of cross drilled rotors makes another premise, an inaccurate one. This premise is that what is safe for motorcycles is safe for cars. Common sense eliminates that as a possibility. As such that particular argument is proven untrue as it was based on an inaccurate premise. I don't think I need to pass a bar exam to analyze an argument.. But thanks for the advice, I might be wrong. I can admit that =)